One of the more popular fables retailed by the Democrats is that Republicans use social "wedge" issues that have nothing to do with the business of government to win elections, and Democrats do not. Now, I don't deny that Republicans often run campaigns that deal with social issues and the values of the candidates, and I'm not going to get into a long debate here about the relative degree to which social issues like abortion, crime, immigration, the death penaly, same-sex marriage, racial preferences, etc. do or do not have anything to do with the powers of government as they exist in the real world. But the idea that Democrats don't do this stuff, or that they don't sometimes succeed in prying off voters on "values" issues, is utter nonsense. They complain about it largely for two reasons: (1) Republicans tend to win more votes than they lose in most fights over social/cultural issues and (2) members of the national media who share Democrats' values like to believe that their positions on these issues are the only acceptable ones, and that it is only divisive to disagree with them, even if the people doing the disagreeing constitute a decisive majority.

The nomination of Sarah Palin as the Republican candidate for Vice President has produced a spate of efforts to drive a wedge between her and the voters on precisely these sorts of issues. In a few cases, there are fair arguments to be had: Palin is an uncompromising pro-lifer and supporter of gun rights, and obviously there are a lot of voters on each side of those issues. But several efforts to paint her as a social-issue extremist are, at best, seriously lacking in supporting evidence. Maybe something we don't know will come out, but on a couple of these it seems pretty unlikely from what we do know. Let's look at a few of those.

Let's face it: an awful lot of social conservatives in this country have had that conversation about, say, banning pornography, and in many cases about things that may be offensive for other reasons. It's one thing to have the idle conversation; it's another to actually put state power behind banning particular books, even if the "ban" just means not spending taxpayer money on them and even if you could boil the list down to the most patently offensive. Accepting that distinction is, in fact, part of the process of maturing from a rookie politician (which Palin was 12 years ago) into a responsible administrator. Absent any evidence that Palin ever lifted a finger to get any books banned, this is at most a charge that Palin has concerns about the state of our culture and has wished at times that we could do something about it. Do the Democrats really want to run against even that wish in the abstract? Maybe they do. But the charge that Palin actively supports banning books has nothing to support it, and you should not believe anyone who repeats the charge if they can't come up with evidence to support it.

II. Abstinence-Only Sex Education

A good many social conservatives, preferring not to surrender to the government the instruction of their children on matters of sexual morality, either don't like public-school sex education or insist that governmental instruction on sex should be limited to encouraging teenagers to not have sex (a/k/a "abstinence-only" sex education).

Kids get pregnant because they have poor impulse control, hazy conceptions about the future, and possibly, parents who they are afraid will find birth control. None of these are problems that sex ed helps with.

Do you believe that drug education reduces drug use? If you're reading this web site, I bet you don't, and you're right--the most famous program, D.A.R.E., has consistently failed to show any positive effects, something which is disguised by the program producers by constantly changing the curriculum so that whatever program just flunked a reality check isn't the same as the awesome new program they're using now.

Do you think that driver's education reduces risky driving? If you do, it's because you were home schooled and never met any teenagers. Teen fatalities have declined thanks to other laws, but not because we told 'em they might be killed. The future beyond next month is not very real to teenagers, which is surprising, since they're immortal.

Indeed, as the proponents of comprehensive birth control education often readily comprehend in other contexts, such as smoking education and high drinking ages, telling kids that something is risky often makes them enjoy it more.

A lot of Palin's critics jumped on her supposed support for abstinence-only programs like a starving man on a sandwich to justify their continuing interest in the pregnancy of her 17-year-old daughter. But they seem to have skipped the step of actually looking carefully at Gov. Palin's position - again, this LA Times piece comes from Walker's article at Reason:

In July of [2006], she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

Again: if the Democrats want to characterize this position as outside the mainstream, we have to wonder what "mainstream" they have been bathing in.

III. Evolution

Another issue on which there seem to be an awful lot of single-issue, litmus-test, nothing-else-matters voters on the left side of the spectrum is the teaching of "intelligent design" or other forms of "creationist" or quasi-creationist theories of the origin of species that refuse to accept the mostly-consensus scientific view of evolution. This tends to be a debate that leads off into a lot of linguistic dead ends (for example, modern evolutionary biology has moved on a good deal from Darwin), but as a general rule the debate tends to boil down to one of three positions: (1) ban the teaching of evolutionary biology - a position almost nobody supports anymore; (2) require the teaching of "intelligent design" alongside the teaching of standard evolutionary biology; or (3) ban the teaching of anything but standard evolutionary biology. I'll leave aside for now the merits of that debate, because yet again there's a bunch of smoke here with basically no fire.

During a 2006 gubernatorial debate in Alaska, Palin was asked if she supported teaching an alternative to evolution.

"Teach both," Palin said at the televised debate, according to a news story in the Anchorage Daily News. "You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

But....

After the debate, Palin told the newspaper she would not push the state board of education to add evolution alternatives to the mandatory curriculum, nor would she base appointments to the board on the candidates' views on the issue.

Sarah Palin was questioned more closely about her views on creationism a couple of days after the debate. She then seemed to deny that she did want to introduce creationism into the school curriculum. Rather, she said that she didn't "think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class," but that it "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum". Religion was not "a litmus test", she added. She was more interested in gas pipelines. In her answers to personal questions, a degree of ambiguity persisted. She did believe in a creator, but "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be". Her father had been a science teacher; they had had discussions when she was a child about "his theories" of evolution: "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' "

As with the libraries issue, this wasn't a years-later effort to conceal her position, such as we've seen from Barack Obama's attempts to whitewash his votes and legislative proposals on guns or abortion; Palin was immediately making clear that this was basically just her personal view that she was not going to foist on anybody, and Palin has kept that promise. The bottom line is that Palin hasn't actually spent much effort on social issues in office. In Washington, she won't be able to avoid social issues, of course, and indeed her sincere convictions on issues like abortion are one of the major attractions of Palin's candidacy. But the relevant point on intelligent design, as with book banning and abstinence education, is that in 10 years in executive office she hasn't actually used state power to support any of the things she's accused of supporting.

It's usually not that hard to understand that distinction. Joe Biden can say that life begins at conception, but only an imbecile would call him "pro-life," because he doesn't want the government to do anything about it. For political purposes, the issue is how this all translates into public policy. And that's exactly where Palin's critics have come up empty.

"I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there's joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?"

We've heard not a dime's worth of difference between the McCain-Palin ticket and the Bush Administration on medical breakthroughs that millions of parents and doctors believe could save lives and transform the quality of life for countless Americans.

Now, I'd prefer that McCain - and, for that matter, Obama and Biden - came around to realize that the tremendous scientific progress on non-embryo-destroying stem cell research in the past two years (see here, here, and here) has essentially gutted the case for federal funding for embyronic stem cell research, at least for any purpose other than helping Democrats win elections. Indeed, I wonder at the scientific illiteracy of politicians who still support such funding, and wish more of them would come out where Gov. Palin has. The good news is that the McCain-Palin campaign website now talks up the alternatives, and recognizes the moral hazards:

As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

+++

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

[W]e call for a major expansion of support for the stem-cell research that now shows amazing promise and offers the greatest hope for scores of diseases - with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells - without the destruction of embryonic human life. We call for a ban on human cloning and a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes.

I hope McCain comes around at some point to opposing wasting taxpayer money on embryonic stem cell research. In the meantime, the Obama campaign is trying to have a debate that, like the various efforts against Gov. Palin, ignores McCain's actual record and positions.

One of the more popular fables retailed by the Democrats is that Republicans use social 'wedge' issues that have nothing to do with the business of government to win elections, and Democrats do not."

I'm finding it hard to believe that many Democrats subscribe to that fable. Both parties contrast each other on social issues. The important distinction from my point of view is that when it comes to winning an election, pushing those issues are more critical to the Republican base than that of the Democrats. McCain's choice of Palin, who has strong social conservative credentials is testament to that.

Though I am barely a Democrat, one of the reasons that I am not a Republican is because that party is so dependent on the religious right. To that extent, the party has to focus on these social conservative issues, and they just aren't that critical to me.

Posted by: MVH at
September 9, 2008 10:16 PM

Crank,

The title led me to believe you were going to disect Eric Wedge's post game BS interviews.

Solid post, Crank. Nice to see you're still capable of climbing down from the edge of hysteria to compose a thoughtful, well-reasoned argument.

I still don't like Palin (for the actual substantive positions she takes), but I'm glad to gain some clarity on a few of these issues. I think the Dem's "wedge" issue should be the earmarks she HAS accepted and even the way she ramrodded spending decisions while mayor of Wassilla (sp?).

Her social positions matter in terms of the decision to support her, but as you suggest here, fire is fire and smoke is smoke (a lesson both parties should observe and obey, but neither does).

"Another issue on which there seem to be an awful lot of single-issue, litmus-test, nothing-else-matters voters on the left side of the spectrum is the teaching of "intelligent design""

So now you are against a single litmus-test issue on candidates? Yours is abortion. Mine is 15th century science being taught 600 years later.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at
September 10, 2008 8:43 AM

BOOK BANNING

Palin had “a conversation” about book banning, similar the ones most “social conservatives” have had? Really? Before getting into the issue of book banning in general. I’ve seen a photo of the Wasilla Public Library. I don’t know how many volumes are in its collection, but we are not talking about a significant one. How many offensive books could there be? Also, as mayor, the highest elected official in the town, she had not one, not two, but three conversations with the librarian about removing books. One would think that after the librarian refused the first time, she would not ask again. Not Sarah. Oh, her next move was to fire the librarian. Just a coincidence I’m sure.

ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEX EDUCATION

On what basis do you assert that sex education, drug education and driver education do nothing to reduce unwanted pregnancies, drug abuse and teen accidents? To know that, you would have to compare samples of teens who went through those programs with those who did not, controlling for other variables (such as IQ, parenting, family income, etc.). Oh, sorry I missed it. You know because somewhere there is a stone tablet on which the reasons why teens act as they do is written and you have read it. You assert your conclusions so emphatically, it would be nice to actually have some proof.

Of course Palin is against sex education; according to the pastor at her church it is God’s will that no such teaching occur. Obviously, as Palin knows only too well, no approach is 100% effective, but to for an elected official to rule the program out to all because of personal religious beliefs is, well, Un-American.

EVOLUTION

Creation “science” is a crock. To deny evolution is to deny gravity. To assert that it would nevertheless be part of public school curricula so that “all sides are heard” is akin to requiring the teaching of Marxism/Leninism or Jihadism so “all sides are heard.”

STEM CELL RESEARCH

Once again, religion pokes its way into public policy because it seems you and Palin are opposed mainly to embryonic stem cell research. Oh, I got a good chuckle form your citation to Reason and the NY Post (along with one other source) on the great advances that don’t require destroying embryonic stem cells. The gist of your argument is that, SO FAR, Palin hasn’t tried really hard to have her religious views adopted as law. One conclusion from that is that she is not a very effective executive, notwithstanding how she has stared down the Russians and prevented a Canadian invasion. Or, that she simply hasn’t had enough time and opportunity. Can we take that chance? God, I hope we do not.

Posted by: Magrooder at
September 10, 2008 11:13 AM

Magrooder,

Maybe she knows when and where to use her influence and that to push her own religious views on the state would be ultimately be
a) an unwinnable battle and
b) irrelevant in the functioning of her state.

Such discernment is a requirement for being an effective executive. This would be one reason why she has 80% approval in her state.

Posted by: Chris Graham at
September 10, 2008 12:34 PM

The reasons for Palin's approval ratings. Well, it is either that or the fact that the run-up in oil prices leading to overflowing state coffers.

Posted by: Magrooder at
September 10, 2008 1:37 PM

Magrooder,

Yeah, you're right on that one. A $5B state surplus, however it came about, will certainly help approval ratings, too.

Posted by: Chris Graham at
September 10, 2008 1:47 PM

You understand, don't you, that as omnipotent as you believe she is, the rise in the price of oil had absolutely nothing to do with anything she did or didn't do?